[EM] Declaration wording refinement

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Richard Fobes wrote:

> If you have already signed the declaration and do not like the new 
> wording, please say so.  If necessary we can remove your signature, but 
> hopefully we can resolve any objection (which is likely to be an issue 
> for others as well).  If you like the new wording and have already 
> signed, no reply is needed.
> 
> If this wording refinement is now enticing you to sign this declaration, 
> please supply your signature in the previously shown format.  (A 
> semicolon separates the signature into: name; contact info 
> (non-software-collectible); credentials; election-method preference)

I would prefer the previous version, because it states outright that we 
prefer each other's advanced methods to Plurality, which I think is the 
case. I don't know about the opinions of the others, but in my opinion, 
Plurality is a pretty low bar to clear. Of the "realistic" methods (e.g. 
not things like Antiplurality, whoever-comes-last-wins, etc), the only 
ones where I'd be cautious to say I prefer them over plurality would be 
IRV and Borda.

I would still sign the new version, but I think that if we can agree to 
support each other's methods against Plurality, the declaration will be 
stronger for it.